What view of justice is "carnal" and what is not?

You're exactly correct Iconoclast. Benjamin does condemn his own theology here with his own words, (instead of his intended audience; i.e. those who hold to our theological stance) which is most assuredly "resentful" of all things God, (to use his words):

He was not aware that he had spoken against His own objections of Sovereign God. And you are correct again Iconoclast; this all goes right back to and stems from his errant and fallacious view of sinful man within his lost state shown forth in Biblical revelation.

All the omnis, the Sovereignty of God, and the true state of lost mankind are all jeopardized from his faulty premise.

- Peace

 

Ah, the immaturity of sides surfaces again.

 

The subject my premise refers to is a view that displays it doesn’t recognize God is Only Good, Truth and Love as opposed to evil:

But I see you don’t like that phrase “roundabout” and you claim I misunderstand and am forced to twist and accuse Calvinist. Did I say “Calvinist” or did I say “any view which displays one does not recognize that God is only Good, Truth and Love”?

Further, you suggest that I presented a “carnal philosophical view” meaning (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil) is a carnal view.

What does…“your carnal philosophical view can attempt to set aside divine truth” refer to and object to if not the subject (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil)??? Me?” :laugh: (now, that would be a direct personal attack BTW, you should know better than that) Do you not see the “roundabout” way, aside your typical MO to call carnal those who oppose “your” what you call “divine truth”, in this case, must be in opposition to the clear subject.

Iconoclast, I’m afraid you misunderstand that you have just used a “roundabout” way to object to my clear subject of: (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil). Do you not see the irony in that?

Again, what we have here is you using a “roundabout way” (AD Hominem) to voice your objection that (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil).

But, thanks for making my point that this often happens in a roundabout way.

 

Do you believe that God is PERFECt in ALL of His divine attributes?

if yes, than why get so worked up over the biblical facts that God will do whatever pleases Him, and that whatever He chooses to do with be the BEST decision to be made each time?

NONE of us will be advising the Lord, as His ways/thoughts are FAR above /beyond us!
The HS knows His very thoguhts, but we do not!

Your posting here appears to be just the sort that Apostle pauls addresses, by asking who are we to find fault with God?

 

How convenient of you two to disregard the rest of that sentence:

Define your view sovereignty if not in opposition to "God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil". Seems more like you are condemning your own theology to fit the bill of what I said.

 

Yep.

These are the same incessant questions ophrased differently, all with the same basic objection and objective.

Iconoclast nailed and suggested this also in his response.

And yet, this quote is still troubling and is fitting when tied in with your last statement jesusfan:

Ponder such a thought suggested by another.

 

So Benjamin my friend...
Are you saying you have not accused calvinists of this "roundabout" way.
You have both done that....and directly stated such several times.....and you know it. A bit disengenuous...don't you think? That aside

You cannot even be honest enough to address the issue....My quote from Exodus shows that was not my intention,or how I used your phrase.
try again.....I notice you do not respond to the other parts of the post...
jn3 gen 6...not surprised however.
Then we have this....

well let me make it clear for you....NO it is not that God is good,or truthful...
carnal reasoning is what several of you do trying to resist the truth of God's free grace.....this is not direct personal attack...but what actually takes place most everyday here. Here is what it is....and for examples you can look to most of your posts and see for yourself...

Scripture verses are offered....you or one of the others take a word from the verse ,and misuse it....or you go off from scripture with one of these syllogisms.or allegorical,anecdotal stories.......if x= something and y is something else, the z cannot be this because....

or The apostle said this , but obviously he could not mean what the church has taught for years,because the first cause, is not causitive, etc....

no verses are offered, just paragraph after paragraph spinning wheels going nowhere fast.

That is what I speak of as carnal reasoning...not derived from scripture....as if you are setting yourself over scripture.

Another way to see it is when in the middle of a debate some say...I never said that.....as in your reply here......I said it is wrong to cherry pick verses, and offered the Exodus verse as an example of keeping a balance....
instead you try to turn it, but have failed once again...

here is one of your recent offerings;
Second, the author of the quote you cite begins his argument with a “weaseler” (literature given to protect a claim by watering it down): i.e. “While the doctrine of predestination is not a necessary outgrowth of the absolute foreknowledge of God,” Then he criticizes resorting to a paradox to maintain logically incompatible omni-doctrines , continues in contradiction of himself by offering up a “classical view of foreknowledge” as an absolute to proclaim predestination as truth and saying, “this indeedprecludes the concept of authentic human freedom” in essence presuming one (omni-doctrine) is more important than the other. Then again goes back to speak of how we must resort to a paradox and how that is illogical while insisting his doctrine of classical foreknowledge has its origin of in logical formation while admitting it defies human freedom. His argument becomes almost humorous as he displays his double-minded reasoning. In the crux of his argument (speaking of the necessity of maintaining Omni-doctrines) he ignores Omnibenevolence (which is necessary for righteous judgment and to avoid fatalism) in favor of Omniscience.
lol....there are many more

 

Natural justice is true justice—on earth. And it's the law of God—on earth. On earth, men will not be judged for their evil hearts, but only for their evil actions. But in heaven (IOW, from the point of view of Heaven) men are judged for what they are. So, as I showed you in the thread you closed to escape admitting defeat, the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day are co-murderers with them who slew Zechariah some 800 years earlier. They won't answer for it on earth, because they didn't do it on earth. They did it in their hearts, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment. And not only for the murder of Zechariah, but for all the righteous blood from Abel to the end of the world.

But there is a justice even higher than that, that we're told simply cannot be perceived by men. Ways that are higher than ours than the sky is above the earth. Thoughts that are too big for men, even spiritual men, to conceive.

And here, you do that which is condemned in Romans 1, to make the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man. Stop thinking of God as a man. He is not a man. He is not under the law. The law is smaller than He is. He is the Creator, and if He creates one for one purpose, and another for a different purpose, there is nothing you can say about it. How is He wrong to do what He will with His own? He didn't ask you, and He will not be judged by you. Just be thankful He told you, and be humble enough to accept it.

You don't consider it objectively. You are forced to rewrite it and create a huge fairy tale around it to satisfy your carnal sense of justice.

God loved Jacob and hated Esau before either were born. You see? You cross swords with Paul at each step. Your arguments are easy to overcome.

 

I could play the scripture food fight game, which you would wish to use as a smokescreen and draw this into a circular debate around, all day long with you Iconoclast. The fact that you have nothing left but start attacking the usefulness of logic concerning those verses you want to play games with merely shows your ignorance of how to conduct an argument designed to draw out the truth within those verses.

It is a clear waste of time to address most your arguments because you have shown over and over you can not follow simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter. We’ve had this discussion in the past about philosophy before and I will not pursue your attempt at a smokescreen to advert the topic of discussion to this matter which you whine about.

 

just wonder how there can be place much confidence in a God who either does not know all things that will happen, or else is dependent upon others to make sure that His Will can get done!

The absolute sovereignty of God is a big thing to me, as it reduces me having to relying upon myself as the ultimate source of my powering, and that I can have assurance in a God who know all things, can intervene in my life to make sure that despite my own at times bad decisions, he can still override them to make sure all things will work together for my good in the end!

Wonder how many Non cals here would agree with Bible that 'I MSUT decrease, so that he MUST increase?"

or that allowing God to call all the shots would result in perfect peace, and assure an "abundant life?"

 

A Big problem with non cal theology in this area is a "watering down" of the fall of Adam, and its results....

MUCH of what you say regarding choosing/free will/motives etc would work in case of Adam, as he was created in free will, but after he chose to sin, that was forever taken away!

We can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to get saved, its fully the work of God, as we are at war in our flesh against Him, cannot be tamed, and only he can make us willing to come to Christ and get saved!

 

Yes, one of several huge problems with their theology, but you'll never convince them.

There definitely is an agenda when a persons subject is nearly always directed at one thing, in this case Calvinist theology.

All one can do is answer with truth while keeping in mind the objective isn't against one personally at all, it goes much higher than that.

Another thing that I take up is addressing threads where blatantly false implications are stated against Calvinist theology and in this case individual Calvinists; i.e. the thread where one stated something along the lines that arminian/non-cal theology and those who hold to it "own up" to their sins, while calvinists don't accept responsibility. That was the implication and it remains a total misrepresentation altogether. Imagine starting such a thread with the same tone and subjective accusations against non-cals and their theology? Nevertheless we saw several chime in to support this captious and mendacious characterization of the calvinist brethren.

But looking at all of this and its frequency, I for one am flattered concerning such an assailment.

Now we have a new thread, with a new twist, and it again is misguided and erroneous in its attempt to represent Calvinist theology.

I am still interested and struck by the quote used here:

That right there says a lot.

Anyhow, simply address the fallacious teaching, and go on. And don't allow the misrepresentation of this theology along with those who espouse it to go on unaddressed, no matter how many chime in to support it. It's still error, even if you have to stand alone against it.

By the way, you, Aaron, The Archangel, Iconoclast, EWF, JArthur, Luke2427, glfredrick among others have been excellent in exposing the errors of this in its many threads.

- Peace

 

Here's what makes interacting with you a tedium. One will say the sky is blue, and you will say, but not at dusk or dawn or nighttime, or if it's too cloudy.

Well, duh! That's understood.

More than that. Judging a man's heart is more than exposing the actions they committed in earth, it's exposing the guilt they bear for things for which one cannot know by nature he could be held accountable.

Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
​

The scribes and Pharisees 800 years after the event are indeed the murderers of Zechariah.

In fact, one by nature would say it shouldn't be so, which is what you say, and why you said that Christ was only saying they were guilty of the same kinds of things.

Your parting shots at the closing of a thread belie this explanation.

And in this you are deceived. You have been shown time and again that the carnal mind is at enmity with God, and canNOT be subject to it.

Your little rant is rebutted above. So thankful for Paul!

 

Benjamin,
it would be a waste of time ,at this time.

Like I said..scripture and what it teaches is spiritually discerned...it must be God given...you do not agree there so....I am not interested in your philosphical attempts to "divine" spiritual truth by philosophy;

Paul faced philosophers in acts 17 also...they had similar feelings-

I wonder if they felt Paul could not follow;
simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter.

Well Ben...we approach things from a different point of view...the two will not find agreement anytime soon...

I will stick with this:

 

This has nothing to do with the topic and of course you're going to continue with this smokescreen whinning about philosophical reasoning which takes you off your game plan. But I'll offer you this: You might want to re-read Acts 17 and take note that Paul understood philosophy very well and addressed Epicurean and Stoic philosophers after they began to refute him and he did it point by point. Paul even quoted some of their teachers in his sermon so obviously he knew quite a bit about Greek philosophy and spoke with philosophical language. Oh, yes, Paul was learned man and reflected knowledge of the major philosophies in several of his letters. Paul's question-and-answer style in Romans 3:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 6:2-19 are very similar to Cynic. Philonic or Platonic thought is reflected in Hebrews. Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12 when he says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." Apparently Paul often answered with philosophical reasoning to get the truth of his messages across to "men of reason".

 

Thanks, "Q", excellent response.

 

Good post. Even a cursory examination of arminian theology will certainly show the exaltation of man, and the diminishing of the attributes of God must by necessity proceed form that point. Non-cal theologies suffer the same fate, while many of this non-cal variety cry to not be "labelled" this allows them to continue on oblivious to and hiding from what saids beliefs label them as, and from the subsequent indictment it places on them due to their theology.

I patiently await the next assailment on Calvinist theology, and to yet again hear the proponents thereof speak again and exalt again their cherry-picked attributes while turning a blinded eye to all the Glory, and that they will yet again remind us of the power of man and choice that cripples Sovereignty until man makes a decision.